robosmith Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 5 hours ago, West said: My issue isn't that I don't understand it's that the argument is rubbish You ONLY believe that, BECAUSE you don't understand it. AND you give NO REASON to justify your OPINION, ALSO because you don't understand. Just making empty claims is STRONG EVIDENCE of your FAILURE to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 13 hours ago, User said: What specific action was being incentivised and what evidence do you have that is why it was being done? What business was brought before the court that had anything to do with Thomas going on vacation with friends or having a friend help him with an RV? What evidence do you have behind the motivation for why he failed to report anything? All you have is baseless speculation and assertions you can't back up with anything. Ya know...this debate about Thomas, reminds me of Brandon's family business. Yet these guys will defend Brandon and his family to their Graves. I find that...telling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: ^This is just stupid. Putting fingers in my ears would not stop me from seeing your BULLSHIT. Anything from FOS LIES suffers from the same DEFECT, and thus the same response. Duh. IF you have a different source, no one knows about it cause you never post any. Lol...oh robo...you are at least entertaining. A bonified "one horse pony". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Ya know...this debate about Thomas, reminds me of Brandon's family business. Yet these guys will defend Brandon and his family to their Graves. I find that...telling. Because you don't understand it's a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Thomas is getting bribed to stay on the court, and Joe is NOT getting any bribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Just now, Hodad said: You're playing a very poor game of semantics. As illustrated, "pro-life" doesn't have anything at all to do with life, writ large. It very simply means that we should outlaw abortion, robbing women of the choice whether to suffer a pregnancy or terminate it. Which brings us back to WHY the pro-life flag is indeed antagonistic. It's not a simple uplifting message. It's a position asserting dominance over have the population and meaningfully impacting their rights and lives. Stop pretending that it's anything other than that. You just look silly. Maybe you really have no clue what it means... but after your repeated posts ignoring what I shared with you about the Pro-Life flag, I have my doubts that you are being anything other than purposefully less than honest in your dealings here. The foundation of the Pro-Life movement is on the premise that the unborn child is a human life with a right to life and it is wrong to kill it. Hence... Pro-LIFE, as in the LIFE of that unborn child. I mean really, you don't have to agree to be honest enough to acknowledge what it is others believe or to discuss what it is they believe. Back to that whole courtesy thing you demand of others but not yourself... 5 minutes ago, Hodad said: Spoken like someone who's never given birth. Only a callous man could hand-wave away the birth process as inconsequential. The fetus is connected to, dependent on and literally inside a specific person. If you don't think that's a difference--a number of VERY obvious differences--from a born person I don't know what to tell you. Another strawman. I did not hand wave away the birth process. The point here is that nothing magical or even physical happens during that birth process that changes what a baby is other than its location as it moves through and out. Of course there are many differences, but not for what the unborn child is. That is what we are discussing here. There are a lot of differences between a person in outerspace and a person in the desert too, that we could list out forever... but they are still both people. You make obfuscation an art form. 8 minutes ago, Hodad said: It's not a person because it's not a person. LOL, well, just brilliant! Wait, have I not already been in a discussion with you on something else where you were playing this same dumb game? 9 minutes ago, Hodad said: A) It's very rarely a matter of convenience 95% of abortions are for the mere convenience of it. 10 minutes ago, Hodad said: ^^There you go. 5% of the non-religious are "pro-life" No, that is a very specific position on abortion being wrong in all circumstances, that is not what makes on Pro-Life or identify as Pro-Life. Even going by your source, it would be that 21% would be Pro-Life as they find it morally wrong... 12 minutes ago, Hodad said: You don't need to pretend that the pro-life movement isn't fueled by religious dogma. If that embarrasses you, perhaps reconsider your position. Ah yes, you got to get your little bigoted comments in there every chance you can! The Pro-Life movement is no more fueled by "religious dogma" than thinking it is also wrong to push Grandma over the cliff because you are tired of her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Nationalist said: Lol...oh robo...you are at least entertaining. A bonified "one horse pony". That's all it takes to refute YOUR OPINIONS. Or ANYTHING from FOS LIES. It is you who needs to find a different and CREDIBLE pony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: Because you don't understand it's a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Thomas is getting bribed to stay on the court, and Joe is NOT getting any bribes. Oh SHUSH YOU! Good lord. "YOU DONT UNDERSTAAAND." "FOS LIES." "NO REASON TO BELIEVE ^" Dude I'm guessing you got picked on a lot as a child, and carry a subconscious grudge against humanity. Am I right? Edited May 2 by Nationalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, User said: Maybe you really have no clue what it means... but after your repeated posts ignoring what I shared with you about the Pro-Life flag, I have my doubts that you are being anything other than purposefully less than honest in your dealings here. The foundation of the Pro-Life movement is on the premise that the unborn child is a human life with a right to life and it is wrong to kill it. Hence... Pro-LIFE, as in the LIFE of that unborn child. I mean really, you don't have to agree to be honest enough to acknowledge what it is others believe or to discuss what it is they believe. Back to that whole courtesy thing you demand of others but not yourself... Another strawman. I did not hand wave away the birth process. The point here is that nothing magical or even physical happens during that birth process that changes what a baby is other than its location as it moves through and out. Of course there are many differences, but not for what the unborn child is. That is what we are discussing here. There are a lot of differences between a person in outerspace and a person in the desert too, that we could list out forever... but they are still both people. You make obfuscation an art form. LOL, well, just brilliant! Wait, have I not already been in a discussion with you on something else where you were playing this same dumb game? 95% of abortions are for the mere convenience of it. No, that is a very specific position on abortion being wrong in all circumstances, that is not what makes on Pro-Life or identify as Pro-Life. Even going by your source, it would be that 21% would be Pro-Life as they find it morally wrong... Ah yes, you got to get your little bigoted comments in there every chance you can! The Pro-Life movement is no more fueled by "religious dogma" than thinking it is also wrong to push Grandma over the cliff because you are tired of her. You post a lot of ^OPINIONS with ZERO evidence for anyone else believing they're accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, robosmith said: You post a lot of ^OPINIONS with ZERO evidence for anyone else believing they're accurate. Be more specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, Nationalist said: Oh SHUSH YOU! Good lord. "YOU DONT UNDERSTAAAND." "FOS LIES." "NO REASON TO BELIEVE ^" Dude I'm guessing you got picked on a lot as a child, and carry a subconscious grudge against humanity. Am I right? When you post just your OPINIONS, you need at LEAST a REASON to believe them. Duh. But you're so arrogant you believe your mere claims have some magical unstated backing. They don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted May 2 Author Report Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, User said: Be more specific. There are many, but FOR ONE, your statistics have NO SOURCE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 8 minutes ago, robosmith said: When you post just your OPINIONS, you need at LEAST a REASON to believe them. Duh. But you're so arrogant you believe your mere claims have some magical unstated backing. They don't. Ahhh...i am right. Poor you. You have my heart felt sympathies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 11 minutes ago, robosmith said: There are many, but FOR ONE, your statistics have NO SOURCE. Oh, I always have the receipts for my positions: " Roughly equal proportions of women in both surveys indicated that a baby would dramatically change their lives, that they could not afford a baby now, that they did not want to be a single mother or had problems with their relationship, and that they were not ready for a child or another child. While some of these proportions showed statistically significant differences, in our assessment they were not substantial, because the percentage changes were small." https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 (edited) I'm having a Bug's Bunny moment... @robosmith - How now brown cow? Sigh...I feel better. Sorry... Edited May 2 by Nationalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 On 5/2/2024 at 3:16 PM, User said: Maybe you really have no clue what it means... but after your repeated posts ignoring what I shared with you about the Pro-Life flag, I have my doubts that you are being anything other than purposefully less than honest in your dealings here. The foundation of the Pro-Life movement is on the premise that the unborn child is a human life with a right to life and it is wrong to kill it. Hence... Pro-LIFE, as in the LIFE of that unborn child. I mean really, you don't have to agree to be honest enough to acknowledge what it is others believe or to discuss what it is they believe. There's an insane entitlement mentality to this whole "pro-life" perspective. You frame this entire argument around what you think and what you want. Specifically what you want a woman to do with her body. It's an inescapable fact that by trying to legislate your view and your wishes, you are actively trampling on the physical sovereignty, autonomy and rights of women. It should be a woman's choice. You want to strip away that choice and legislate your feelings, and force that onto women. It's 100% and anti-choice movement. Quote Another strawman. I did not hand wave away the birth process. The point here is that nothing magical or even physical happens during that birth process that changes what a baby is other than its location as it moves through and out. Of course there are many differences, but not for what the unborn child is. That is what we are discussing here. There are a lot of differences between a person in outerspace and a person in the desert too, that we could list out forever... but they are still both people. You make obfuscation an art form. Once again, you have zero consideration for the woman--the actual born person and citizen. You're so damn busy arguing that nothing changes with regard to the fetus (despite becoming a physically separate entity, FFS) that you hand-wave away the impact of birthing on the women actually doing the birthing. The misogyny is off the charts. These are people--actual people--and you do not get to dismiss their investment and their choice in this process. Quote 95% of abortions are for the mere convenience of it. Once again, you completely and utterly discount the entire view of the women. Mental health is not a matter of convenience. Physical health is not a matter of convenience. The woman's philosophy and beliefs are not a matter of convenience. This entire post from you could be summarized as "Women aren't relevant in this process or this conversation. They are just incubators who should STFU and do their job." Quote No, that is a very specific position on abortion being wrong in all circumstances, that is not what makes on Pro-Life or identify as Pro-Life. Even going by your source, it would be that 21% would be Pro-Life as they find it morally wrong... Nooooope. The pro-life movement is not about life sometimes, or life in certain circumstances. You've been droning on and on about what the "pro-life" flag represents, so I assumed you would know what it is you're describing. international pro-life flag will wildly help the movement in its already-unified aim: ending abortion. Not reducing abortion. Not abortion sometimes. ENDING abortion. And the logical point that you fail to understand about that statistic is that many people who find abortion "morally wrong" aren't interested in legislating their morals onto other people. There are people who think that drinking, smoking, gambling, lying--or whatever else--is morally wrong. Do you know how they respond? They don't DO the thing. Have your morals. Just stop trying to force other people to live by them. Quote Ah yes, you got to get your little bigoted comments in there every chance you can! The Pro-Life movement is no more fueled by "religious dogma" than thinking it is also wrong to push Grandma over the cliff because you are tired of her. Grandma is a person. Hurting other people is (usually) wrong. It's an action that harms another, so it is illegal. A fetus is not a person. There is no science to support the idea that a fetus is a person. The idea that a fetus is a person (despite lacking all or most aspects of personhood, depending on the developmental stage) comes from a religious perspective and the notion of souls. So yes, it's a movement based entirely on religious dogma. And again, even if we were to stipulate for the sake of argument that a fetus is a person, there is no argument to make for why this person should be granted ownership of a woman's body, blood and tissue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 10 minutes ago, Hodad said: ...You frame this entire argument around what you think and what you want. Specifically what you want a woman to do with her body.... I guess, thanks for making my response easy. No, this discussion here was about the meaning of Pro-Life terminology. You completely ignored anything I said and what we were discussing and now want to argue about abortion legislation in general. Care to respond to the point this time? 12 minutes ago, Hodad said: Once again, you have zero consideration for the woman--the actual born person and citizen. You're so damn busy arguing that nothing changes with regard to the fetus (despite becoming a physically separate entity, FFS) that you hand-wave away the impact of birthing on the women actually doing the birthing. The misogyny is off the charts. These are people--actual people--and you do not get to dismiss their investment and their choice in this process. Once again, you completely ignored what we were discussing. The discussion here was about your absurd notion that one second before the baby is out of the birth canal is somehow not a person and then one second later, just like magic, it is! We were not discussing the impact on anyone here, and I was not doing or saying anything about this. Care to respond to the point this time instead of feigning this fake outrage over things I have neither said or done here? 16 minutes ago, Hodad said: Nooooope. The pro-life movement is not about life sometimes... I can't help you if you are going to continue to refuse to engage honestly here about what the basic premise of the Pro-Life position is. You don't have to agree to understand. 17 minutes ago, Hodad said: And the logical point that you fail to understand about that statistic... I didn't fail to understand anything. If you had something extra to share like this, go for it. Doing so after the fact is not a failure on my part. You were trying to make a point about how many identify as Pro-Life by claiming a statistic of people polled saying "illegal in all circumstances" was = Pro-Life. The Pro-Life position is not defined by having to believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. In fact, a vast majority of folks in the Pro-Life movement believe there is at a minimum an exception for the life of the mother, because two rights to life are conflicting, only one can succeed. So, once again, you did not even bother to stay on the subject. 25 minutes ago, Hodad said: Have your morals. Just stop trying to force other people to live by them. Says the guy who wants to teach everyone's kids how to have anal sex and give good blow jobs... My "morals" regarding abortion being wrong are no different than thinking it is wrong to push Grandma off the cliff being wrong. Do you think it should be legal to push Grandma off the cliff now? 30 minutes ago, Hodad said: Grandma is a person. Hurting other people is (usually) wrong. It's an action that harms another, so it is illegal. A fetus is not a person. There is no science to support the idea that a fetus is a person. The idea that a fetus is a person (despite lacking all or most aspects of personhood, depending on the developmental stage) comes from a religious perspective and the notion of souls. So yes, it's a movement based entirely on religious dogma. And again, even if we were to stipulate for the sake of argument that a fetus is a person, there is no argument to make for why this person should be granted ownership of a woman's body, blood and tissue. The point of my comment was to explain to you that the position for not supporting killing unborn children is no more based on religious dogma than the position to not support pushing Grandma off the cliff. It is your premise that the unborn child should have no considerations, not mine or those in the Pro-Life movement. Once again, this is simply a failure on your part to have the capacity to understand how others think so you can get another little bigoted jab in. Lets just set the record straight, I get it, you don't like religion. You don't have to keep trying to prove it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.